Skip to main content

Full text of "The Revised Version of the Apocrypha"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



CRITICAL NOTICES 32I 



CRITICAL NOTICES. 



THE REVISED VERSION OF THE APOCRYPHA. 

This final instalment of the Revision of the Authorized Version of 
161 1 will be found to stand, in point of merit, as its contents mostly 
fall in point of time, somewhere between the Old and New Testaments. 
But while it does not, as a whole, attain the level of sober scholarship 
displayed by the Old Testament Revision, yet it is in parts a splendid 
performance, which will reflect credit on English learning and prove 
a priceless boon to the student. Indeed, the work as a whole is 
a distinct advance on the A. V., and it would have been a greater stride 
still but for the regrettable fact that some of the best of the new 
features are strangely defaced by what looks like a want of continuity 
in the editing. The most striking change is naturally the one that 
first catches the reader's eye : the arrangement of the whole version 
into paragraphs, and the display of the parallelism of line by the 
method of printing adopted in the more poetical and sententious 
parts. It is difficult to suggest any other cause than the one already 
hinted at in explanation of the spasmodic way in which the second 
of these great changes is neglected. The Prayer of Manasses is 
printed in one long paragraph, though the parallelism is quite as 
marked as in the Song of Judith, which the Revisers print in parallel 
lines. The same remark applies to the Song of the Three Children, 
where the parallelism is as plainly discernible as in any part of the 
Old Testament literature. Cf. the 136th Psalm with this Song, and 
it will be seen that while the 0. T. Revisers rightly place the refrain, 
" For his mercy endureth for ever," in a separate line throughout, 
the Revisers of the Apocrypha neglect to do the same with the equally 
catching refrain, "Praise and exalt him above all for ever." (It is 
here noteworthy that the phrase " above all " is a developed form of 
the Psalmie " above all gods.") A similar surprise must be felt about 
the treatment of portions of Baruch iii-v ; surely the parallelism in 
iii. 9 sq. is as easily displayed as say that in Ecclus. 1. 1-3, where the 



322 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

Revisers adopt the newer method? Baruch iii. 9-1 1 should run 
thus : — 

Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life : 

Give ear to understand wisdom. 

How happeneth it, O Israel, that thou art in thine enemies' land, 

That thou art waxen old in a strange country, 

That thou art defiled with the dead, 

That thou art counted with them that go down into the grave ? 

Another general and external point, on which however a difference 
of opinion is sure to be felt, concerns the retention of the italics. 
This is to me a very disturbing matter, though here the Revisers of 
the Apocrypha only maintain the questionable plan of the Old 
Testament Committee. But in the Apocrypha, as the Revisers' 
preface points out, a " greater freedom of rendering characterizes the 
(A. V.) translation when compared with the translation of the Old or 
of the New Testament," and this greater freedom, we are told, was 
here preserved. Why then was it necessary to print " a Greek place 
of exercise" in 2 Mace. iv. 12, where the text yvpvd<noi> and the 
context render the word "Greek" a necessary part of the translation ? 
The inconsistencies which such a method involve may be seen by 
comparing the R.V. of Proverbs xvi. 1 with the R.V. of Ecclus. i. 1. 
In the latter, the Greek Ilaaa aocpia irapa Kvplov is rendered "All 
wisdom cometh from the Lord," but in Prov. xvi. 1, where rtiJ?D "noi 
}1K9 involves a similar addition of a verb " to come," the R.V. rightly 
gives us " The answer of the tongue is from the Lord," without any 
italicization of is. This question I am here raising is not a mere 
quibble, for at the basis of a true translation must lie a reproduction 
of Hebrew or Greek idiom by English idiom, and not by an italicized 
rendering which implies that a word or idea is unexpressed in the 
original, when it is really implicitly expressed by the syntax of the 
original. In Wisdom xvi. 9 the italics seem superfluous in rendering 
two TowvTcov "by such as these" ; ibid. vii. 4 " watchful cares" seems 
to imply that the Greek (ppovrlatv does not exactly mean " watchful, 
anxious concern." In Baruch vi. 39 "these gods of wood," for ™ 
£i\iva introduces an unnecessary interpolation — "wooden things" 
is a more effective phrase. In Susanna v. 46 why is woman italicized ? 
Does not ravrrfs mean " this woman " ? That the matter is important 
may be seen from this, that the use of italics leads sometimes to 
what is almost a mistranslation. A case occurs of what I mean, in 
the R.V. of the Wisdom of Solomon vi. 14, *o dpOpiaas eV avnjv 
is translated "He that riseth up early to seek her;" seek being 
italicized, the reader is perhaps led to fancy that the Greek verb 
does not mean "seek." But this is just what opOpifa does mean 



CRITICAL NOTICES 323 

in Hellenistic Greek. Thus in Job viii. 5, where the Hebrew runs 
bit bx -inen nm DK, the LXX has <rv 8e SpOpifr npbs Kvpiov, and 
the R.V. " If thou wouldst seek diligently unto the Lord." Cf. the 
use of 6p6piC<>> in (LXX) Ps. lxiii. 1, and in some other passages cited 
by Prof. Preudenthal in this Review, III, 746. The old sense of 
"rise early," had passed into the derived signification "to seek 
earnestly." Further, the italics are often ambiguous, for occasionally 
they imply more than the actual text contains. A striking instance 
is Ecclus. xii. 3 " a foolish daughter is born " to her father's loss. 
The Greek, however, has only Ovydrvp. In point of fact the author of 
Ecclesiasticus has a very low opinion of women in general (cf. Cheyne, 
Job and Solomon, p. 187) ; and while he draws a distinction as regards 
the father's gain or loss between a bad and a good son, he may mean 
that a daughter, whether foolish or wise, is her father's loss ; at best 
she is her husband's gain, always she is her father's detriment. 

On the other hand, the Revisers have boldly broken from the old 
spellings of the names in the Apocrypha. They have not attempted 
a pedantic consistency, but they have been guided by sound common- 
sense and critical judgment. Some would have preferred them to 
have been a little bolder here and there, e. g. in 1 Mace. v. 66 where 
Marisa and Samaria might have changed places in margin and text. 
They have retained, too, the spelling Modin in 1 Mace. ii. 1-5, though 
there can be little critical ground for omitting an e and reading 
Modein, a syllable present both in the Greek MwSeiV, and in the 
Hebrew D'yilD. It is not obvious, again, why Arius in 1 Mace. xii. 7 
is read for 'Apsis — but what a scholarly change is made here from the 
Darius of the A.V. ! Again, why do the Revisers, who rightly reject the 
AV. Maspha (1 Mace. iii. 46), replace it by Mizpeh ? Both the Hebrew 
of the MT. and all the varying texts of the LXX retain the second * 
sound, as do the Revisers of the Old Testament (see e.g. 1 Sam. vii. 5). 
But the name improvements are so numerous that it is impossible to 
do more than indicate a few. Nebuchadnezzar (Judith, passim) for 
Nabuchodonosor ; Chittim for Chettiim (1 Mace. i. 1) ; Phineas and 
Joshua (1 Mace. ii. 54-55) for Phinees and Jesus; plain country (1 Mace, 
xi. 38) for Sephela; Hasideans (=tP*PDn 1 Mace. ii. 42) for Asideans; 
Chislev (ibid. i. 54) for Casleu; Michmash (ibid. ix. 73) for Machmas; 
Hazor (= "Wn ibid. xi. 67) for Nazor. The Revisers rightly resisted 
the temptation to substitute (with Codex Sinaiticus) Nahum for 
Jonah in Tobit xiv. 4, for though Tobit seems to imply ignorance of 
the Bible narrative in declaring that, " I believe all the things which 
Jonah the prophet spake of Nineveh, that it shall be overthrown," 
he is really following a Rabbinical tradition which would have it 
that the repentance of the Ninevites was insincere, and that their 



324 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

respite from destruction was probably temporary. pj>OB> Ml "iDK 

mw hmk ib>j> nven btf nawn b^ p (Taanith, r. j. 11. 3. Cf. 

Rosenmaim, Studien zum Buche Tobit, p. n). 

To many readers the point of greatest moment will be the treat- 
ment meted out to the text by the Revisers. The title-page anticipates 
the chief novelty of the revision, for we are informed that the present 
translation is made " out of the Greek and Latin tongues." This 
prepares us to find included the Latin fragment of 2 Esdras, but it 
also prepares us for the fact that the Revisers have not used any 
Hebrew texts to modify certain readings in the Greek. The point 
is a very debateable one. It must be freely admitted that the Hebrew 
or Aramaic texts of certain parts of the Apocrypha are neither ancient 
nor authentic. With the second book of the Maccabees (by the way 
the Revisers might profitably have given us the third and fourth books 
in an Appendix), and the Wisdom of Solomon, no Hebrew could be 
of any relevancy. The extant Hebrew Versions of Tobit and Judith 
are useless for this purpose 1 , even if we do not accept the improbable 
theoiy of NOldeke, Fritsche, and Schiirer that Tobit was originally 

1 Hebrew usage seems to suggest an emendation of Judith ix. 12, 
where the exclamation NaJ vai is somewhat pointless. Is it not pos- 
sible that these words belong to the pi - evious verse and represent the 
Hebrew p«i )n»? The LXX is not consistent in its rendering of jo*», 
sometimes it uses yivotro, sometimes Afi^v. — In Tobit iv. 17, I feel 
almost certain that the Greek is best explained by supposing a mistake 
between -opa and i">pi. (By the way, the Revisers ought probably to have 
replaced " grace " (in Ecclus. vii. 33 b) by " kindness," for here x&piv 
= icn.) Rosenmann, p. 22, defends the reading laps by quoting is D'asim 
oyisn nap from the Karaite Sahal ben Mazliach, but the word should 
be read D'JJim . An important variant, suggested by Talmudical passages, 
is three for seven in Tobit vi. 13. — It is almost a pity that the Revisers 
did not add "and cheese" in Judith x. 5, for which there is strong 
authority in the versions and in Jewish tradition. On the whole, it 
must be said that the Revisers have failed altogether to do justice to 
Judith xvi. That in Judith some carelessness occurred is discernible 
from a comparison of xvi. 14 with ix. 12. In the former case vacra 1) miais 
ami is rightly rendered " all thy creation," emending the A. V., which 
renders "all creatures." But in ix. 12, with strange inconsistency, 
fiaaiKtv iraat]s m-iatiit aov is rendered by the R. V. " King of every crea- 
ture," the emendation being relegated to the margin ! —It was, perhaps, 
too much to expect in Bel and the Dragon a transformation of the lions* 
den into the reality — viz. a subterranean pit, or chamber, where the lions 
were for the occasion confined. The Revisers of the O. T. also left the 
den in evidence, though it is hard to conceive how the lions cordd have 
contrived to live there. 



CRITICAL NOTICES 325 

composed in Greek and not in Hebrew. The Hebrew of the first 
book of the Maccabees is lost. But the matter stands somewhat 
differently with Ecclesiasticus. This work was, of course, written 
in Hebrew, and though the Hebrew or Aramaic original has long 
been lost, a large number of quotations from it are to be found in 
Rabbinical literature. These quotations were given in full in this 
Review (Vol. Ill, p. 682) by Mr. Schechter (cf. Vol. IV, p. 162), and it 
is not unreasonable to maintain that they might be used, with caution 
and sparingly, for emending the Greek text. It would no doubt be 
easy to push this argument too far, but I think vii. 10, " Pray not 
when thou art fainthearted" (Heb. HIV hit "flD reading iW for 1TV1*), 
is preferable to "Be not fainthearted in thy prayer." Again, in 
iii. 22, the R.V. has " Thou hast no need of the things that are secret," 
but a better sense is given in the Hebrew " Thou hast no business with 
the things that are secret." In xxvi. 3, should not the Hebrew pTO 
(in the bosom) be read instead of piri3 (" in the portion ") which seems 
to underlie the Greek ev pepiSi ? So in xxxviii. 1, when the Revisers 
were emending the A.V. from " Honour a physician with the honour 
due to him," into "Honour a physician according to thy need of him," 
which has little sense, might they not have gone a little farther and 
have adopted the Hebrew reading " before thou hast need of him " ? 
On the other hand, S e adyah's text of Ecclus. v. 5-7, 1K5JJ t\X1 ffDm 13 
W not D^yen by\ (J. Q.R. IV, 163), better agrees with the Greek than 
do the citations in other Rabbinical forms (J. Q. R. Ill, 695), though the 
latter are more consonant with the context. The Revisers in xxi. 23 
translate (the italics are not mine), " A foolish man peepeth in from 
the door of another man's house," but surely the Hebrew reading n s 3 ba 
"to another man's house" gives a better sense. The Greek otto 
fiipas ...eh oMav is easily explained, since if, instead of the full form 
JV3 ba, the Hebrew had read ITO?, the word would be ambiguous. 
But the passage in which the Hebrew gives the prettiest variant of 
all is in xiii. 15 seq. By reading f[M for 't\ty in verse 16, the Greek 
gives us ncura a-apt- instead of bird, while the Rev^ers (wrongly I think) 
change beast as given by the A. V. in verse 15 into " living creature." 
By this the parallelism is quite lost. If the reader will cast his eye 
down the third column and will compare the italicized lines with 
those in roman type (omitting for the present verse 20), he will see 
that the Hebrew beautifully preserves throughout the comparison 
of a fact in brute nature to a corresponding fact in human nature. 
For verse 20 the Hebrew gives us no help, but I cannot help thinking 
that perhaps CI33 (restrained, humbled) was read for B>33 (lamb), and 
"IT (proud) possibly for 3NT (wolf) (with allusion to Isaiah xi. 6). 
It would be no insurmountable objection that verse 20 would, on this 



326 



THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 



view, resume the thought of verse 17. This is a not unknown device 
with the author of Ecclus. Comp. xxxiii. 19-23, where the final verse 
(23) repeats the thought of verse 19. This is how the present passage 
looks in the A.V., R.V., and in the translation suggested in part by 
the Hebrew : — 



A.v. 

15 Every beast loveth 
his like, and every man 
loveth his neighbour. 

16 All flesh consorteth 
according to kind, and a 
man will cleave to his 
like. 

17 What fellowship hath 
the wolf with the lamb ? 
so the sinner with the 
godly. 

18 What agreement is 
there between the hyena 
and a dog? and what 
peace between the rich 
and the poor ? 

19 As the wild ass is the 
lion's prey in the wilder- 
ness, so the rich eat up 
the poor. 

20 As the proud hate 
humility: so doth the 
rich abhor the poor. 



E.V. 

Every living creature 
loveth his like, 

And every man loveth 
his neighbour. 

All flesh consorteth 
according to kind. 

And a man will cleave 
to his like. 

What fellowship shall 
the wolf have with the 
lamb? 

So is the sinner unto 
the godly. 

What peace is there 
between the hyena and 
the dog? 

And what peace be- 
tween the rich man and 
the poor ? 

Wild asses are the 
prey of lions in ,the wil- 
derness ; 

So poor men are pas- 
ture for the rich. 

Lowliness is an abom- 
ination to a proud man, 

So a poor man is an 
abomination to the rich. 



Beading suggested by 
the Hebrew. 

Every beast loveth his 
like, 

And every man loveth 
his neighbour. 

Every bird dwelleth with 
its kind, 

And a man will cleave 
to his like. 

What fellowship hath 
the wolf with the lanib ? 

So is the sinner unto 
the godly. 

What peace is there be- 
tween the hyena and the 
dog? 

And what peace be- 
tween the rich man and 
the poor ? 

Wild asses are the prey 
of lions in the wilder- 
ness ; 

So poor men are pas- 
ture for the rich. 

As the lamb is hated by 
the wolf, 

So a poor man is an 
abomination to the rich. 



The Revisers, indeed, make use of the Hebrew (or rather Syriac) 
in Ecclus. xxii. 6, but for some curious reason they reject even the 
three clear and well-established emendations (which Cheyne rightly 
accepts, op. cit., p. 196) of "WJ for "IN3, xxiv. 27, of poison for head, 
xxv. 15, and enemies for Tyrians in xlvi. 18. 

It would be hard to congratulate the Revisers too cordially on the 
courage with which they have omitted the spurious additions to 
Ecclesiasticus. Perhaps the omitted passages should have been placed 
in the margin, or in an Appendix, but that was hardly consistent 
with the nature of their work. Nor would it be easy to cite the 
many places in which their renderings in this difficult book are 
decided improvements. I very much fancy the Revisers' phrase in 
xxii. 11, "Weep more sweetly for the dead" — it is a perfect foil to 



CRITICAL NOTICES 



327 



the older classical expression "to weep bitterly," and is a distinct 
gain to Biblical phraseology. In x. 27, Proverbs xii. 9 has been 
rightly used to get the text. But I wish the Revisers had seen their 
way in the Introduction of Ecclus. to translate " and are attached to 
these writings (i. e. this book)," instead of " addicted to these things," 
which is very ambiguous. 

An excellent change in xv. 15, must, however, be specially com- 
mended : 

A. V. E. V. 



If thou •wilt, to keep the command- 
ments, and to perform acceptable 

faithfulness. 



If thou 'wilt, thou shalt keep the 
commandments ; 

And to perform faithfulness, is of 
thine own good pleasure. 

The Wisdom of Solomon as it appears in the Revised Version is 
almost a new book. The translators have here produced a master- 
piece. So frequent and so admirable are the changes, that I despair 
to select adequate specimens. Could anything be better than the 
word nature for vnoarao-is in xvi. 21? The A.V. of xv. 19 runs thus : 
" Neither are they beautiful, so much as to be desired in respect of 
beasts : but they went without the praise of God and his blessing '■' — 
which is a real puzzle. The R.V. beautifully renders : — 

Neither, as seen beside other creatures, are they beautiful, so that one 

should desire them, 
But they have escaped both the praise of X3od and his blessing. 

Another very difficult passage is xvii. 1 1 seq., and here the altera- 
tions are so felicitous and scholarly that I must find space for 
a longer quotation : — 



A.V. 

11 For wickedness, condemned by 
her own witness, is very timorous, and 
being pressed with conscience, always 
forecasteth grievous things. 

12 For fear is nothing else but a be- 
traying of the succours which reason' 
offereth. 

13 And the expectation from within, 
being less, counteth the ignorance 
more than the cause which bringeth 
the torment. 

14. But they, sleeping the same sleep 
that night, which was indeed intoler- 
able, and which came upon them out 
of the bottoms of the inevitable hell, 



E.V. 

For wickedness, condemned by a 
witness within, is a coward thing, 

And being pressed hard by con- 
science, always forecasteth the worst 
lot: 

For fear is nothing else but a sur- 
render of the succours whioh reason 
offereth ; 

And from within the heart the ex- 
pectation of them being less 

Maketh of greater account the ignor- 
ance of the cause that bringeth the 
torment. 

But they, all through the night 
which was powerless indeed, 

And which came upon them out of 
the recesses of powerless Hades, 

All sleeping the same sleep, 



328 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

A.V. E.V. 

15 Were partly vexed with monstrous Now were haunted by monstrous 

apparitions, and partly fainted, their apparitions, 

heart failing them : for a sudden fear, And now were paralysed by their 

and not looked for, came upon them. soul's surrendering : 

For fear sudden and nnlooked for 
came upon them. 

It is a pity to stop the quotation here, for the whole of this most 
difficult chapter scintillates with amazingly luminous emendations, 
which stamp the Revisers as masters of Greek and English. Other 
smaller changes are always improvements ; in i. 12, " Court not 
death," exactly catches the force of foXnvv, and is a delightful im- 
provement on the A.V. "Seek not death." Death is personified in 
i. 16, and the Revisers correctly substitute him for it. In iii. 14 (it will 
be observed that the passages I am here citing are mostly the same 
difficult texts which induced Prof. Margoliouth to propound the strange 
hypothesis that the original language of the Wisdom was something 
other than Greek), the Revisers rightly replace the A. V. " For unto 
him shall be given the special gift of faith " by " For there shall be 
given him for his faithfulness a peculiar favour," for maris means 
fidelity in many passages of Hellenistic Greek (cf. Freudenthal, 
J. Q. R. Ill, 741-2). In iv. 10, the Revisers' emendation is admirable. 
The A. V. reads : " He pleased God and was beloved of him," the 
R. V. has " Being found well-pleasing unto God he was beloved of 
him," which well brings out the idea that r)yanf]8r) is the consequence 
of the righteous man being evdpfaros. The " much people " of the 
R.V. in vi. 2 represents the Greek rrX-qdovs rather better than does the 
A. V. "people." 

I have only left myself space to say a word or two of the new 
rendering of the Books of the Maccabees. Scholarly care is dis- 
cernible in every line of the revision. In 2 Mace. iv. 9, the Greek 
has tovs iv'Upoa-oKifiois 'Avrio)(eis dvaypd^ai, which the A.V. makes non- 
sense of. The R.V. gives the right meaning : "And to register the inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch." On the other hand, the 
technical title orparrryds, in 1 Mace. xi. 59, means more than captain; 
commander would perhaps be a better term (cf. 1 Mace. xiv. 47). At 
all events 1 Mace. xiv. 27-28 is not satisfactorily dealt with, for what- 
ever the right reading is it cannot be " in Asaramel," nor is the latter 
obscure word the name of a place. Schfirer's suggestion {Jewish People 
in the time of Christ, E. T. I, i. p. 265, note 17), that the original was 
?N QJ? "W [3D, has much to recommend it. But the Revisers seem 
throughout their work on the Apocrypha to have resisted practically 
every temptation to construct the text by the aid of Hebrew. In no 
other way can one so readily explain their omission, e.g. in Ecclus. vi. 2, 



CRITICAL NOTICES 329 

to read " by a bull " instead of " as a bull " (cf. Ball's Introduction 
to the Variorum Apocrypha). Might not a better reading have been 
obtained, too, in 1 Mace. ii. 57, by remembering that VHDn (especially 
in the books of the Maccabees), would mean pious acts rather than 
•mercy ? It is hard to understand how " David for being merciful 
inherited the throne." The writer, however, might well have cited 
David's piety as the cause of his preferment. Mercy was hardly 
a characteristic of the Biblical David, however much his virtues were 
idealized. 

In the preceding comments, undue prominence has perhaps been 
given to passages in which I venture to diifer from the conclusions 
arrived at by the compilers of the version under review. But these 
comments must not be taken to imply that I do not fully appreciate 
the magnitude of the service the Revisers have rendered. The 
Revisers might well address captious critics in the words prefaced 
by the grandson of Jesus the son of Sirach to the Greek translation 
of his father's wisdom : — " Ye are intreated therefore to read with 
favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we 
have laboured to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the 
phrases." But the authors of this translation have no need to plead 
for mercy. The most rigid and candid justice must assign to parts of 
their work a very high place, and to all of their work an honourable 
and respectable place, among the great translations of the present 
century. 

I. Abrahams. 



THE SIFRE ZUTA. 

Nt31f >l "iaD. Si/re" Suta, d. i. eig. Si/re" Numeri (in 2. Recension) zum 
ersten Male nach dem handschrifilichen Midrasch ha-gadol, Jalkut 
Simeoni u. a., gesammelt und mit Anmerhungen versehen, nebst 
einer ausfuhrlichen Einleitung herausgegeben von Dr. B. K5nigs- 
beegee. (1. Lieferung, Frankfurt a. M. Kauffmann, 1894. 
24 Blatter, 8vo.) 

Ik addition to the Sifre on the Book of Numbers, there was another 
Tannaite Midrash, several fragments of which are preserved in the 
Jalkut Shimeoni. With these and other fragments as a basis to work 
on, the late Nehemiah Brull contributed to the Jubilee Volume, pub- 
lished on the occasion of Graetz's seventieth birthday, a descriptive 
sketch of the lost Midrash termed the "Minor Sifre" (XDtt nBD). 
He endeavoured to demonstrate that that Midrash did not belong to 
a late period, as even Weiss's History of Tradition assumes, but that